Ignoring
Heavy Metals Toxicity
allows the Diseases Process to Begin
"The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame, in diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease." Thomas Edison
If this is the first time you have heard about your exposure to toxic heavy metals and your health-you are not alone. The proven and incredible health benefits seen when a person removes these harmful toxins are usually due to the patient's own self-discovery. Its true, these toxic heavy metals find their way into our body's daily. Cosmetics, antacids, car and truck exhaust, tuna fish, bass and trout, seafood, shellfish, canned foods, lipstick, buffered aspirin, tobacco smoke, drinking water, amalgam "silver" dental fillings, laxatives, vaccines, fertilizers, processed cheese, industrial pollution, insecticides, herbicides, medications, and many more, contain toxic heavy metals. The process of removing toxic heavy metals from the body is useful in all chronic diseases and for those wishing to stay well and healthy. All heavy metals are toxic to the body; they cause disruptions of metabolism, cell function, and hormone function (i.e., all bodily functions).
Don't look to your traditional doctor for this "get out the toxins to be well" (common sense) approach. Some people wonder if this approach works so well, why didn't my doctor tell me?
When it comes to medical emergencies, contemporary conventional medicine is magnificent. For the treatment of trauma and when extreme, life-saving interventions are called for, conventional medicine's heroically complex surgical techniques and arsenal of pharmaceutical drugs are without parallel. When it comes to the prevention of illness, however, and the treatment of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and the epidemic of degenerative diseases that presently afflict our society, conventional medicine has proven catastrophically inadequate.4
Most people, including physicians, are not aware of the medical politics, legal machinations and economic sanctions that covertly control the practice of medicine in the United States. A physician who introduces an innovative and nontraditional type of therapy often becomes the target of those forces. That is especially true if a new therapy, like EDTA chelation: 1) involves a major shift in the scientific paradigm; 2) if acceptance of the new therapy somehow implies that currently used medical practices are inappropriate; or 3) if the new therapy threatens the financial well being of a politically powerful and well established branch of the medical profession. Quite the opposite occurred with the immediate and widespread acceptance of bypass surgery and balloon angioplasty, which quickly brought wealth and fame to surgeons, cardiologists, large teams of health care professionals, and the hospital industry.5
It is not widely know that nearly half of Americans - 125 million among a population of 276 million - suffer at least one chronic disease, everything from allergies to heart disease. This is 20 million more than doctors had anticipated this year, researchers say. One-fifth of Americans has two or more chronic illnesses, complicating their care and making it more expensive. The nation is unprepared to cope with the growing burden of chronic disease, with annual medical bills alone expected to almost double to $1.07 trillion by 2020. While doctors have made major advances in treating certain chronic illnesses, they cause 70 percent of all U.S. deaths, reports the Federal Center for Disease Control and Prevention.6
Only 15 percent of the medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, or in other words 85 percent are not.'
The FDA does not actually test drugs, but only reviews studies submitted by drug manufacturers. A drug manufacturer needs to submit only 2 studies showing satisfactory results to get a drug approved by the FDA - even if there are even more studies showing the drug causes adverse reactions in an acceptably high number of cases? Most of the articles discussing the efficacy of drugs that are published in medical journals are studies paid for by the drug manufacturer. Often, as stated in the New York Times last summer, the academic scientists listed as lead authors are often just the "window dressing," to lend credibility to papers that are really the work of drug companies. Also, a study conducted by USA TODAY found that more than half the experts hired to advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of medicines had a direct financial interest in the drug or topic they were asked to evaluate. A significant portion of your tax dollars earmarked for healthcare goes to research patentable drugs that make billions of dollars for drug companies.'
Over 2,500 drugs are on the market and the average physician is familiar with only about 50 of them, so doctors must rely on the drug companies to keep them abreast of the new developments. 9
Tens of thousands of bypass patients each year suffer mental decline after surgery, including difficulty thinking and remembering. The condition may not show up for several months and can last for years - as many as one-third of the patients experienced this (Dutch study in JAMA - March 20, 2002). There are several theories about the cause: perhaps the heart-lung machine is the culprit, maybe the anesthesia - or the trauma from the operation. The study adds to the mystery of losses of mental capacity suffered by heart-by-pass patients. Even though there are these negative outcomes, still over a half-a-million heart-bypass operations are done nationwide (in 1999). 10
Kelatox: Only $199 for 30 suppositories.
Roughly Equivalent to 15 I.V. Sessions.
900 mg Ca-Edta per Suppository
Free Shipping!
Back to Chelation by Suppository Homepage
References:
4.
Burton Goldberg Testimony "Integrative Oncology-Cancer Care for the New
Millenium" June 7 and 8 2000, Washing DC
6. Associated Press, Washington, Nov 2000
9. "Making Medicine, Making Money" Philadelphia Inquirer, Dec. 1992
10. "Study denies link between mental loss, heat machine", AP, The
Daily Progress newspaper, Charlottesville, Virginia, March 20 2002
Note: "The Food and Drug Administration have
not evaluated these statements.
This product is not intended to diagnose, cure, treat or prevent any disease.
Results will vary."
Copyright ©2003 Stephanie Relfe. All rights reserved.
